RAVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order dated 16.8.1976 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, by which the learned Magistrate dismissed a petition of the petitioners filed under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code') and ordered issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 1 is one Ravi Singh, Mine Manager, Pipradih Limestone Mine and petitioner no. 2 is M/s Parshva Properties Limited, owner of the aforesaid mine. The facts leading to the impugned order are shortly these:-

(2.) On 19.4.1978, the Labour Reforcement Officer (Central), Dehri-on- Sone filed a petition of complaint against the petitioners under Rule 22 of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules) for the contravention of the rules 5, 5-A 17 (1), 8 (1) (i) of the aforesaid Rules. It is not necessary to state the actual contravention made by . the petitioners and suffice it to point out that some of the contraventions were punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 200 and others were punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500 only. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram took cognizance on the complaint and transferred the same to the court of Sri N. K. Singh, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, for disposal. When the record was received in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate the learned Magistrate recorded an order dated 24.5.1974 fixing 15.7.1978 for issuance of summons against the accused. On 15.7.1978, a petition was filcd belore the learned Magistrate by the petitioners under section 205 of the "Code. The petitioners stated in the petition that Adishwar Prasad, Commercial Manager-cum-Superintendent, who represented the petitioner no 2 had to represent the Company at various places, such as Calcutta, Dhanbad and Patna. As regards the Mine Manager, Sri Ravi Singh, it was that he was in charge of the entire mines operation at Pipradih and that his frequent absence from the mine was likely to affect the mining operation adversely. The petitoners also stated that the offences alleged against them were of patty and trivial nature ; that the petitioners' lawyers were prepared to represent them in court and, therefore, they may be allowed to be represented through the lawyers. The petitioners in the same petition undertook to appear before the learned Magistrate, if and when so directed by him. The learned Magistrate fixed 18.7.1978 for hearing of the petition. For some reason which is not clear, the petition was not heard on 18.7.1978 and next date fixed in the ease was 16.8.1978. On that date the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order which is as follows :-

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Magistrate was in error in supposing that the petitioners could not be given protection of section 205 of the Code and that no ground has been made out by the petitioners for granting the relief prayed for by them. Learned Counsel contends further that the order of issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest was patently illegal and gross abuse of the process of the Court.